Support NeoGAF

[benjipwns]

See you're working from so far deep into the utopian end of the ideological spectrum that you apparently refuse to even comprehend an ideology that doesn't seek to impose a single trickle down system.

You keep demanding I impose a system on everyone when the entire point is not imposing a system on everyone but allowing multiple systems to emerge democratically.

The critique of our modern global anarchy is that it didn't seem to get enough momentum to be democratic enough to spread liberty unbounded and it seems to be in some places trending backwards into a reactionary anti-democratic, anti-liberal movement to re-consolidate power in fewer hands. So I naturally disagree with movements away from democracy and liberty since as those grow the probability of slavery and violence decrease.

Come on, if you can't afford to voluntarily pay for protection, you can voluntarily choose to either watch either your wife get raped or your house get burned down.

Funny because the current law in this country is that police and other government agents don't have to respond at all. And you still pay for it!

 

[East Lake]

The system is non-violence. That's your system. If it hasn't developed maybe it's because it's hard to develop with actual people and not on a legal pad.

 

[benjipwns]

Except that it has developed, and it's working constantly. It'd just work a little better with less of its aggressive buddy.

 

[East Lake]

It has! People aren't violent without the state?

 

[benjipwns]

Why would you think that?

 

[East Lake]

I don't know, so they are violent still? What happened to non-violence?

 

[benjipwns]

You seem to be under the impression that multiple distinct things can't exist at multiple distinct times in multiple distinct locations.

This is why we can have anarchy internationally and yet also have totalitarian enclaves such as North Korea or New York while also having semi-liberal semi-democracies like Switzerland and Texas. While still having anarchy within these systems. Meanwhile at the same time we can have countless cases of coercive corporate violence (U.S. vs ISIL, Democrats v. Republicans, Comcast v. Customer Service) and even greater countless cases of nature doing what it always does.

Thanks to human ingenuity and ever growing wealth we're hopefully more likely than not going to have wear shades in our natural liberal democratic anarchy.

Spoiler

That's when we export our coercive violence onto other planets to steal their labor.

 

[East Lake]

Which is the one where human ingenuity fixed the violence?

 

[benjipwns]

It appears I don't have the ability to make things clear enough for you to follow, so I'll just make a mental note of another of my failures.

 

[benjipwns]

Speaking of failures, Obama's doomed, GOP sweep incoming:
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/218973-liberal-base-sours-on-obama

President Obama's poll numbers are plummeting in deep-blue states, such as New York and California, with core liberal supporters who have stuck with him through thick and thin beginning to sour on his leadership.

Obama’s decisions to punt on immigration reform, defend government surveillance and attack fighters in the Middle East have all alienated parts of the coalition that elected him to the White House twice.

The growing dissatisfaction on the left could limit Obama's ability to help Democrats in the midterm elections and could threaten his political legacy if — as happened with George W. Bush — his party begins to abandon him.

The slipping support for Obama is most evident in a pair of recent surveys of Democratic strongholds. Just 39 percent of registered New York voters surveyed in a Marist College poll said Obama is doing an "excellent" or "good" job, down six points from June and the lowest level in the state since the beginning of his presidency.
Earlier this month, only 45 percent of California voters said they approved of how Obama was handling his job — a 5 percent decrease from June.

National polls also suggest a growing discontent.

...

Since announcing that he would delay executive action on immigration reform until after the midterm elections, Obama’s numbers have plummeted with Hispanic voters. In an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 47 percent of Latino voters approved of the president’s performance, down 15 points over the past 20 months.

The White House acknowledged the delay would be unpopular, especially with Hispanics.

“The president is willing to take a little political heat from the pundits, from some of the advocates in the Hispanic community in particular, in order to ensure that the policy that he puts forward is one that can be sustained,” Earnest said earlier this month.

Holding off on immigration is expected to boost some of the most vulnerable Senate Democrats, including Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, and Mark Begich of Alaska. All had asked Obama not to act unilaterally on immigration.

But as Obama’s base abandons him, helping Democratic candidates becomes a tougher task for the White House. Although the president has attended a slew of committee fundraisers, he has yet to appear at a campaign event with any Democratic candidate this cycle.

White House officials say Obama will ramp up his travel next month, when the public’s attention will shift largely to the midterms.

But the president is expected to stay away from states where Democrats are in close races, over concern he could be an anchor. Campaign stops will likely be in states like Minnesota and Michigan, where Obama has a deep reservoir of support, and Democratic candidates enjoy comfortable leads in the polls.

 

[East Lake]

I think it's clear enough. It doesn't exist.

This reminds me of a horrendous book called Stranger in a Strange Land where the main character is a Martian who develops what is essentially a cult that fixes society. Everybody is happy with no conflicts. The twist being that the author couldn't properly conceive of anything practical that might fix the problems and then opts to use the main character's martian powers to create this well adjusted society.

Spoiler

The angry mob in plain old state hell kills the main character at the end, but the joke is on them because the martians can easily kill everyone else in return, and vow to reproduce faster than all others. It's not morally bad because people are reincarnated and have as many chances as they need.

Seriously is the contention that non-violent anarchy is working in some localized spot? Is it at Best Buy? lol. I could see it working where there's barely any semblance of an important moral relationship between the traders of goods, but as soon as someone feels they're wronged somehow it'll fall to pieces. Could it be in a National Park? Anarchy is working in Yellowstone people. I told you guys it was working. Until it was privatized then we'd have people using force against each other to claim the land.

 

[Chichikov]

Well, except Bakunin and Kropotkin and Mises and Hayek.

YOU SAID THE SECRET WORD!!!

Spoiler

fuck Mises and Hayek though.

 

[benjipwns]

The only funny political cartoon ever drawn!

 

[East Lake]

I'm using my slave laborers to work on one about people that stop posting when they have to explain where anarchy is working.

 

[benjipwns]

I already explained, again, every part of my stance, but as I already admitted apparently not well enough for you to understand.

 

[East Lake]

Try rewording it brother. Maybe it'll hit me this time.

Edit: Oh well if it's too conceptually advanced for me there's no hope for the masses. Maybe before it's too late you can take up of another form of study like Mathematics.

 

[David Incorporated Esq.]

Every time Benji posts I really try to read and understand it but always end up feeling like I've just read timecube.

 

[benjipwns]

Edit: Oh well if it's too conceptually advanced for me there's no hope for the masses. Maybe before it's too late you can take up of another form of study like Mathematics.

It's not complex you're just making it overly complex trying to tie knots around an argument not being made. pigeon understood just fine.

Why would I go back to school because people of a certain disposition act as expected?

Every time Benji posts I really try to read and understand it but always end up feeling like I've just read timecube.

No man on Earth has no belly-button, it proves every believer on Earth a liar.

Children will be blessed for Killing Of Educated Adults Who Ignore 4 Simultaneous Days Same Earth Rotation.Practicing Evil ONEness -Upon Earth Of Quadrants. Evil Adult Crime VS Youth. Supports Lie Of Integration. 1 Educated Are Most Dumb. Not 1 Human Except Dead 1. Man Is Paired, 2 Half 4 Self. 1 of God Is Only 1/4 Of God.

 

[East Lake]

Every time Benji posts I really try to read and understand it but always end up feeling like I've just read timecube.

Lol, it's the ever shifting nature of the principles. It's all about the benefit of voluntary free markets until it's not, then it's about the evils of the state, or non-violence until it's actually not what it's about, when that stops making sense it's about really needing democratic ingenuity, and when that stops making sense it's really just the same thing as what we're doing now, if only we'd accept it and do something the same (different) that might work this time with the same people.

 

[Diablos]

Can the judges on the DC circuit be replaced if the GOP gets a Senate majority?

Obama is fading fast. It's sad. I hope he doesn't take the party with him.

Six years in you can't expect people to be as enthused. But I'm kind of surprised some Democrats don't understand the gravity of his actions right now regarding things like immigration, and how acting right before the election is only going to hurt Democrats and ultimately undocumented immigrants even further.

As for taking action against ISIS, I am sure a Republican President would be far more aggressive and reckless at the moment in combating them. Furthermore, this isn't really a direct consequence of Obama's leadership style but the implications of looking like you aren't taking some kind of action in a post 9/11 world.

I fear people are forgetting about the alternative despite a long, dismal eight years of George W. Bush's completely disastrous policies. Ignorance is bliss?

If Dems lose the Senate, 2016 might be up for grabs. It could (hopefully) end up meaning it was just a bad map for Dems when a lot of needed voters were tuned out, or it could be a snowball effect which leads to a bigger problem -- people wrongly (in my view) fed up with Obama's leadership, as if the GOP would be any better, and extending that frustration to the Democratic party putting a severe hindrance on them heading into 2016.

 

[benjipwns]

How are multiple reasons that all lead to the same thing "shifting principles"?

Voluntary free markets are the most democratic form of human interaction, the state is a corporation whose purpose is to use violence to suppress voluntary activity and democracy. Anarchy is not some farfetched utopia as we currently live in such a system with 190+ competing corporations claiming a monopoly on the use of force. And within the areas claimed by those corporations we have entirely different levels of polycentric law.

The only power any one individual holds is the ability to grant legitimacy to a corporations claim on the monopoly or not, people will not withdraw this legitimacy or power because they want to use it against those who they perceive as cultural enemies. Few are willing to accept either of these facts because it means they're complicit in violence, but to renounce it is increase the chance to become the next victim. And so they go on supporting corporate violence and consolidation trying to patch it over and get the right people in charge and convince each other that human beings are scum who need to be ruled by betters because otherwise might mean that someone, somewhere, is doing something without what they think is their permission.

So democracy, liberty, accountability, the apolitical and more is cast aside to make way for the triumphant corporate state. Large institutions with massive bureaucracies doing "things" of importance. Experts who pull all the right levers, and whose status and mission can never be questioned. Who lead, who make us work together, as one people for one goal. One nation, indivisible from GE or Goldman Sachs.

But these men who claim and exercise this absolute and irresponsible dominion over us, dare not be consistent, and claim either to be our masters, or to own us as property. They say they are only our servants, agents, attorneys, and representatives. But this declaration involves an absurdity, a contradiction. No man can be my servant, agent, attorney, or representative, and be, at the same time, uncontrollable by me, and irresponsible to me for his acts. It is of no importance that I appointed him, and put all power in his hands. If I made him uncontrollable by me, and irresponsible to me, he is no longer my servant, agent, attorney, or representative. If I gave him absolute, irresponsible power over my property, I gave him the property. If I gave him absolute, irresponsible power over myself, I made him my master, and gave myself to him as a slave. And it is of no importance whether I called him master or servant, agent or owner. The only question is, what power did I put into his hands? Was it an absolute and irresponsible one? or a limited and responsible one?

When a consumer buys a product on the market, he can compare alternative brands. … When you elect a politician, you buy nothing but promises. … You can compare 1968 Fords, Chryslers, and Volkswagens, but nobody will ever be able to compare the Nixon administration of 1968 with the Humphrey and Wallace administrations of the same year. It is as if we had only Fords from 1920 to 1928, Chryslers from 1928 to 1936, and then had to decide what firm would make a better car for the next four years….Not only does a consumer have better information than a voter, it is of more use to him. If I investigate alternative brands of cars …. decide which is best for me, and buy it, I get it. If I investigate alternative politicians and vote accordingly, I get what the majority votes for. …Imagine buying cars the way we buy governments. Ten thousand people would get together and agree to vote, each for the car he preferred. Whichever car won, each of the ten thousand would have to buy it. It would not pay any of us to make any serious effort to find out which car was best; whatever I decide, my car is being picked for me by the other members of the group. … This is how I must buy products on the political marketplace. I not only cannot compare the alternative products, it would not be worth my while to do so even if I could.

If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? The organizers maintain that society, when left undirected, rushes headlong to its inevitable destruction because the instincts of the people are so perverse. The legislators claim to stop this suicidal course and to give it a saner direction. Apparently, then, the legislators and the organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and above mankind; if so, let them show their titles to this superiority.

Anarchists did not try to carry out genocide against the Armenians in Turkey; they did not deliberately starve millions of Ukrainians; they did not create a system of death camps to kill Jews, gypsies, and Slavs in Europe; they did not fire-bomb scores of large German and Japanese cities and drop nuclear bombs on two of them; they did not carry out a ‘Great Leap Forward’ that killed scores of millions of Chinese; they did not attempt to kill everybody with any appreciable education in Cambodia; they did not launch one aggressive war after another; they did not implement trade sanctions that killed perhaps 500,000 Iraqi children.

In debates between anarchists and statists, the burden of proof clearly should rest on those who place their trust in the state. Anarchy’s mayhem is wholly conjectural; the state’s mayhem is undeniably, factually horrendous.

Thus, After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

When applied to the ultimate ends of action, the terms rational and irrational are inappropriate and meaningless. The ultimate end of action is always the satisfaction of some desires of the acting man. Since nobody is in a position to substitute his own value judgments for those of the acting individual, it is vain to pass judgment on other people's aims and volitions...The critic either tells us what he believes he would aim at if he were in the place of his fellow; or, in dictatorial arrogance blithely disposing of his fellow's will and aspirations, declares what condition of this other man would better suit himself, the critic...It is usual to call an action irrational if it aims, at the expense of "material" and tangible advantages, at the attainment of "ideal" or "higher" satisfactions...However, the striving after these higher ends is neither more nor less rational or irrational than that after other human ends.

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

in order to keep agreements we first of all need to know what we agreed to

disregard for the preferences and interests of individuals alive today in order to pursue some distant social goal that their rulers have claimed is their duty to promote has been a common cause of misery for people throughout the ages

Now let's somehow fuck this thread off to the next page so people can talk about the new Iowa poll proving PD (r.i.p. in peace) right without seeing my insane garbage that nobody can seem to resist warring against despite it's blatant and obvious wrongness.

 

[benjipwns]

Can the judges on the DC circuit be replaced if the GOP gets a Senate majority?

I don't believe so. Unless one goes into senior status of course or resigns or is appointed to USSC.

 

[benjipwns]

presenting the GOP 2052 candidate...

 

[benjipwns]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/chelsea-cl...charlotte-clinton-mezvinsky/story?id=25723634

Chelsea Clinton has given birth to a baby girl, according to a tweet she sent out early Saturday morning.

Her name is Charlotte Clinton Mezvinsky.

 

[Diablos]

Excellent name choice.

I don't believe so. Unless one goes into senior status of course or resigns or is appointed to USSC.

Can't they fuck with the rules to figure out a way to get rid of them?
I remember all their vows to exact revenge on Harry Reid when he did it. :lol

 

[East Lake]

190 corporations! I wonder how that compares to smartphones! Tim cook keynote speech on the latest and greatest iGovS. Like the iGov but with more property. Militias built right into the system to protect your goods from the vagrant Samsung socialists.

Government's aren't only created to destroy cultural enemies, maybe it's also because people want a consistent set of rules with which to deal with each other, and that it's harder to manufacture government because it has to be agreed upon with the input of many types of people so they have a set of principles that everyone abides by in the country that can't be dumped in the trash as easily as a bad steak.

Edit: Also I'm glad we're past the 2deep4u phase and this quote was posted unironically. It provided an entire new window I haven't thought of into the dogma employed in these writings.

Anarchists did not try to carry out genocide against the Armenians in Turkey; they did not deliberately starve millions of Ukrainians; they did not create a system of death camps to kill Jews, gypsies, and Slavs in Europe; they did not fire-bomb scores of large German and Japanese cities and drop nuclear bombs on two of them; they did not carry out a ‘Great Leap Forward’ that killed scores of millions of Chinese; they did not attempt to kill everybody with any appreciable education in Cambodia; they did not launch one aggressive war after another; they did not implement trade sanctions that killed perhaps 500,000 Iraqi children.

In debates between anarchists and statists, the burden of proof clearly should rest on those who place their trust in the state. Anarchy’s mayhem is wholly conjectural; the state’s mayhem is undeniably, factually horrendous.

Anyone feel like that is awfully familiar? Maybe you've heard atheists say the same thing about religion fresh off discovering that it is actually religion and not human fallibility that is the source of the world's problems. There are no violent atheists just like there are no violent anarchists! If everyone thought like an atheist or anarchist what problem would there be? How could anything go wrong when everyone has the same exact principles! One could even extend that thought to violent states. If nobody disagrees with the state what is there to be violent about! Everything is solved. We've figured it out. The key to history.

Or hold on, wait a minute. Isn't not killing in the commandments? They bump those stories in your head early and still a lot of times it doesn't stick. Maybe it's harder to judge someone than simply as a statist, perhaps a bit more complex. Perhaps among the captains of industry in our pure capitalist society there exists a few figures so great they rise above the rest. You've read a book about it, but in the alternate version they're not inventors or heads of manufacturing but financial types and philosophers, having indoctrinated their peers to accept the greatness of capitalism, until it goes too far. Some people get burned on financial deals. People might think, hey what about that capitalism thing? If the damage is deep enough and the situation desperate enough that it ruins lives they might forget about a few principles. Sure they were unfairly treated but what about the glory of capitalism you say, it was all voluntary, they weren't smart enough to decipher the instruments! As the barrel of the rifle corp product you invested in sits pointed at you from a few yards away.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Huffpost put up an article about early voting in Iowa and North Carolina. The news is, predictably, bad for Kay Hagan:

In all of 2010 in Iowa, 349,219 mail ballots were counted. More than a month from the election, already 145,890 voters have requested ballots. An average of more than 8,000 new mail ballot requests were made each day this week (of the four days of new reports). At this pace -- which typically only increases as November nears -- either Iowa will set a record for the share of early voting in a midterm election or Election Day turnout will very high. I would not be surprised if both come to pass given the intense interest in the Braley (D) - Ernst (R) Senate matchup.

Democrats have a commanding lead among Iowa's mail ballot requests. Registered Democrats comprise 52.6 percent of Iowans who have requested ballots so far, while Republicans compose only 26.7 percent. In 2010, Democrats were 43.7 percent compared to 38.0 percent for Republicans among all ballots cast. For Republicans to match their 2010 performance, moving forward they need to have 46 percent of all new ballot requests compared to 37 percent for the Democrats. This assumes the same absolute number of early voters as in 2010; if its higher their challenge will be greater. Republicans need to kick it up into high gear. After a strong start out of the gate for Republicans compared to the start of 2010 -- perhaps driven by mobilization during the primary -- Democrats have dominated the 33,712 new ballot requests this week: 56.1 percent to 23.3 percent.

...

It appears something similar to Florida is happening in North Carolina. Typically, registered Republicans lead the mail ballots; in 2010 they led ballot counted 45.4 percent to 35.7 percent. This year is topsy-turvy, with Democrats leading mail ballot requests 41.4 percent to 35.0 percent. Their lead is persisting in the daily ballot request updates. Once in-person early voting opens on October 23, we'll have a better sense how much Democrats are going to need these banked mail votes.

...

The early voting period has just begun. In North Carolina, perhaps the early vote confirms that Hagan indeed has a narrow lead over Tillis in the polls; the signal is in the same direction. The intense voter mobilization underway in Iowa may mean high turnout. Pollsters don't typically report their expected turnout, but any number of polls are showing Democratic candidates doing better among registered voters than likely voters. The higher the turnout, the more the electorate will look like profile of registered voters, which could be decisive for who wins Iowa and Senate control.

The CNN/ORC poll had Braley leading by 1 among likely voters, but 8 among registered voters. A big part of Democrats' campaign strategy for Obama's reelection was to change the electorate, something that likely voter polls didn't pick up on - let's hope they can make that happen again this year.

 

[BertramCooper]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/chelsea-cl...charlotte-clinton-mezvinsky/story?id=25723634

How soon until we're allowed to call her ugly?

 

[Tamanon]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/chelsea-cl...charlotte-clinton-mezvinsky/story?id=25723634

Charlotte? Is nothing sacred in Hillary's quest for the Presidency?

Aiming for NC already.

 

[Aaron Strife]

GOP already making excuses about losing 2014

"I am worried about it [money] for the first time in a long time," said Rob Jesmer, who ran the National Republican Senatorial Committee in 2012 and 2010 and continues to work on behalf of Senate campaigns now. "I think in some of these places, it could be the determining factor."

The party, Jesmer says, still has a good chance of taking the Senate from Democrats. "But if we don't, the story is going to be that outside money saved these guys."

Also:

The gaps extend to other battlegrounds. One official at the NRSC who tracks media buys said Democrats and their allies have spent or already reserved $23 million more in TV ads between Sept. 1 and Election Day in seven Senate races—Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, New Hampshire, and Virginia. (Virginia and Minnesota are both considered fringe opportunities for the GOP.)

It seems everything will really just come down to the three red states, Alaska, Arkansas and Louisiana. Sure, the GOP could win a majority just by winning those three and holding everything else, but it wouldn't last very long if the best they can do is winning in states they always win.

 

[HylianTom]

Baby already?

Damn.. time flies. Before we know it, there will be primary candidates squabbling with each other all over the place, and Obama will be vetoing the umpteenth Congressional attempt to repeat ACA.

There was a moment at CNN's town hall earlier this year that I wonder if we'll see resurrected now that baby Charlotte is here. Hillary got asked the "would you rather be president or grandma?" question, and she had a pretty good one-liner ready for it that's going to make the gender gap spread wider than..

Spoiler

(nah, I'll avoid the obvious birthing joke here)

AMANPOUR: The ultimate hard choice? Grandmother or the possibility of being the first female president of the United States of America?

CLINTON: Well, let -- you know, there have been a lot --

AMANPOUR: Hard choice.

CLINTON: There have been a lot of grandfathers who have done it.

A few weeks later at a family July 4th get-together, Hillary/2016/politics came-up and I referred to this moment. The women there (one, maybe two out of of the whole bunch identify as Democrats/libs) were very happy over her answer, some asking why men don't get this type of question.

 

[Karakand]

Anyone feel like that is awfully familiar? Maybe you've heard atheists say the same thing about religion fresh off discovering that it is actually religion and not human fallibility that is the source of the world's problems. There are no violent atheists just like there are no violent anarchists! If everyone thought like an atheist or anarchist what problem would there be? How could anything go wrong when everyone has the same exact principles! One could even extend that thought to violent states. If nobody disagrees with the state what is there to be violent about! Everything is solved. We've figured it out. The key to history.

You gotta work on your game, you spar with benji in the realm of things long forgotten.

Let me help, "It's cool how this quote skips over Buenaventura Durruti and Nestor Makhno.

"

 

[WayneMorse]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/27/u...ft-turn-puts-governor-in-tight-race.html?_r=0

Looks like the Dems in Colorado have flown too close to the sun, have gone too far left and it's now looking like the state may be going back to a more libertarian red state.

 

[pigeon]

Every time Benji posts I really try to read and understand it but always end up feeling like I've just read timecube.

All he's saying is the non-aggression principle -- coercive violence is morally wrong, and so our society is morally wrong.

It is silly to try to have a practical argument with somebody who is offering a moral one. If you want to argue with him, offer a moral argument. It's occasionally worth thinking about the moral justification for our society, even if it seems stupid, since it is the foundation of politics.

I still think that coercive violence is inherent in a universe in which scarcity exists, and that's my main disagreement with him.

 

[The Librarian]

It looks like Kay Hagan will win?

I wish I could have predicted this.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

All he's saying is the non-aggression principle -- coercive violence is morally wrong, and so our society is morally wrong.

It is silly to try to have a practical argument with somebody who is offering a moral one. If you want to argue with him, offer a moral argument. It's occasionally worth thinking about the moral justification for our society, even if it seems stupid, since it is the foundation of politics.

I still think that coercive violence is inherent in a universe in which scarcity exists, and that's my main disagreement with him.

I disagree. Engaging on a purely theoretical or ideological basis is good and all, but that does not imply it is wrong to engage in arguments based on applied ethics/morality. The practical effects of theory are very important, as a definitionally consistent position may be inherently self-contradictory in practice or functionally impossible to adhere to.

 

[Oblivion]

He bought into Milton Friedman's hypothetical then tied the Fed's performance metrics to the S&P 500.

As Greenspan himself will admit, pretty much nothing he did as Chairman did he ever advocate for prior to becoming it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenspan_put

So...basically two huge things that contributed to Reagan's economic boom (which conservatives believe to be the greatest period of prosperity in the history of civilization) is due to policies that went completely against his core ideology (loose monetary policy and massive keynesian spending)?

 

[Oblivion]

Pat Robertson said that tax exemptions for the Church do not count as handouts. lol

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Pat Robertson said that tax exemptions for the Church do not count as handouts. lol

I don't necessarily disagree. They're not being given anything the government just isn't enforcing something. The status quo remains.

I find liberals talking about tax credits falling into the same thing. They're not the same as subsidies, welfare, government investment.

The argument shouldn't be about hand outs (why are we demonizing them?) but about special privilege. Churches, rich people, property owners, etc get to do/not do something others can't

 

[Oblivion]

I don't necessarily disagree. They're not being given anything the government just isn't enforcing something. The status quo remains.

I find liberals talking about tax credits falling into the same thing. They're not the same as subsidies, welfare, government investment.

The argument shouldn't be about hand outs (why are we demonizing them?) but about special privilege. Churches, rich people, property owners, etc get to do/not do something others can't

Wait, what? How are they not a handout?

What is a tax exemption to begin with? It's when the government decides that a group of people, or some kind of organization does not pay taxes while others do.

Just cause you don't get a direct check for the government doesn't mean it's not a handout.

 

[HylianTom]

I don't necessarily disagree. They're not being given anything the government just isn't enforcing something. The status quo remains.

I find liberals talking about tax credits falling into the same thing. They're not the same as subsidies, welfare, government investment.

The argument shouldn't be about hand outs (why are we demonizing them?) but about special privilege. Churches, rich people, property owners, etc get to do/not do something others can't

Our city had a series of town hall meetings in each neighborhood, with the Mayor and various city council members present for each. A huge topic was concerning how to pay for our budget shortfall, and one thing brought-up at these meetings consistently was the idea that significant tax revenue is being lost because churches buy-up properties (often in really expensive parts of town) and then just sit on them.

I wonder.. what's to keep me from starting "The Church of the Full Moon Leap Year Akita," and to claim that the structure I live in is actually a place of worship? I know that legal precedent usually requires us to be open to followers on days of worship, but that wouldn't be too often since a full moon falling on Feb 29th is pretty rare (and membership would require Akita ownership).

I hate to play the "special rights" card, but damn if it doesn't pass the smell test.

 

[Oblivion]

By the way, the Value Voters Summit started this weekend. Surprised no one's talked about it. It's like the E3 of teahadism.

 

[WayneMorse]

By the way, the Value Voters Summit started this weekend. Surprised no one's talked about it. It's like the E3 of teahadism.

I thought that was CPAC?

 

[Oblivion]

I thought that was CPAC?

No, CPAC is Comic Con I think.

 

[Aaron Strife]

It looks like Kay Hagan will win?

I wish I could have predicted this.

It's always bad news.

 

[B-Dubs]

It looks like Kay Hagan will win?

I wish I could have predicted this.

Bad news everybody!

By the way, the Value Voters Summit started this weekend. Surprised no one's talked about it. It's like the E3 of teahadism.

Eh, there's always some kind of gathering of crazies going on.

 

[Wilsongt]

It looks like Kay Hagan will win?

I wish I could have predicted this.

Kay Hagan might win?

Bad news for Kay Hagan.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Imagine how hard it'll be for Hagan to win in 2020. Bad news... Well, demographic changes and a presidential election will work in her favor I guess. I mean, no, bad news.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

 

[David Incorporated Esq.]

All he's saying is the non-aggression principle -- coercive violence is morally wrong, and so our society is morally wrong.

It is silly to try to have a practical argument with somebody who is offering a moral one. If you want to argue with him, offer a moral argument. It's occasionally worth thinking about the moral justification for our society, even if it seems stupid, since it is the foundation of politics.

I still think that coercive violence is inherent in a universe in which scarcity exists, and that's my main disagreement with him.

That pretty much puts an end to it. At some point some one some where will want some thing that another person has and use violence to try to take it. Without some system of laws in place there's nothing to stop that, and any system of laws will require an amount of violence for enforcement.

But his argument appears to begin and end at non-violence as a moral standpoint, to which I say: "ok great, then what?"